A report from The Economist Intelligence Unit Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Sponsored by Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Contents
Preface 2
Acknowledgements 3
Executive summary 4
Key findings 6
2016 GFSI overall rankings table 9
Score changes 10
Affordability 11
Availability 15
Quality & Safety 19
Regional comparison 22
Five year trends and outlook 26
Conclusion 29
Appendix: Methodology 30
1 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Preface
The Global Food Security Index 2016: An annual Public Policy, and Hilary Steiner, North measure of the state of global food security is American director of Public Policy, served as the fifth edition of an Economist Intelligence senior advisers. William Shallcross designed Unit (EIU) study, commissioned by DuPont. and constructed the benchmarking model, This report discusses the key findings from the Peter Ouvry provided editorial support and research and the benchmarking index. Mike Kenny was responsible for layout and Katherine Stewart, research analyst, was the design. We would like to extend thanks to the project manager. Robert Smith, research many researchers who lent their expertise to analyst, provided research and analytical this project. A full list of acknowledgements support. Leo Abruzzese, Global Director of follows.
Note: The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor. The sponsor does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colours, denominations and other information shown on any map in this work or related materials do not imply any judgment on the part of the sponsor concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
2 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Acknowledgements
The following economists, researchers, food provided ongoing support, as needed, specialists and country analysts contributed to throughout all five editions of the index, as well the report. We thank them for their as advising on the selection of weightings. participation. Ademola Braimoh (World Bank); Margaret Enis Economist Intelligence Unit specialists and (US Agency for International Development); contributors Craig Gundersen (National Soybean Research Mohamed Abdelmeguid, Diane Alarcon, Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana- Benedict Craven, Tom Felix Joehnk, Champaign); Eileen Kennedy (Friedman School Brendan Koch, Joseph Lake and Robert Powell. of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University); Samarendu Mohanty (International Rice Peer panel members Research Institute); Prabhu Pingali (Gates The following experts on food security and Foundation); Pedro Sanchez (Earth Institute, agricultural policy contributed significantly to Columbia University); David Spielman shaping the index methodology and vetting the (International Food Policy Research Institute); indicators. Their diverse backgrounds and Robert Thompson (Chicago Council on Global extensive experience ensured that a wide variety Affairs); Patrick Westhoff (Food and Agricultural of views were considered. The panel met as a Policy Research Institute, University of group in February 2012 in Washington, DC to Missouri—Columbia) review an initial indicator list. The panel has also
3 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Executive summary
Global food security continues to improve. the GFSI as a research tool to identify key Hunger has decreased: the UN Food and countries in which to focus advocacy efforts for Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that food-security policy changes and developments. the number of undernourished people has fallen The private sector uses the tool as a launch pad by 176m over the past ten years.1 But almost to make strategic decisions, explore food 800m people—just over one in nine people—still consumption trends and develop corporate remain hungry, and food security continues to be social responsibility initiatives. one of the major global challenges for the future. Over the past five years, the GFSI has shown The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Global Food improvements in food security. Overall global Security Index (GFSI) provides a common economic growth has led to improvements in the framework for understanding the root causes of structural areas that are essential to improving food insecurity by looking at the dynamics of people’s access to a wide range of affordable, food systems around the world. It seeks to nutritious foods, including more extensive food answer the central question: How food-secure is safety-net programmes, expanded food a country? Food security is a complex, multi- transport infrastructure and greater dietary faceted issue influenced by culture, environment diversity. This is particularly evident in middle- and geographic location. The index cannot income and emerging-market countries, which capture intra-country nuances, but by distilling have reached the economic and development major food-security themes down to their core threshold necessary to enable them to focus on elements it provides a useful approach to improving government programmes to enhance understanding the risks to food security in food security, expand avenues of financing for countries, regions and around the world. farmers and promote infrastructure By creating a common framework against development, and where a burgeoning middle which to benchmark a country’s food security, class is increasingly demanding access to a more the GFSI has created a unique country-level diverse range of foods. food-security measurement tool that addresses Low-income countries have not yet reached the issues of affordability, availability and this threshold. They often lack basic utilisation in 113 countries around the world. infrastructure, and smaller incomes inhibit Since its inception, the GFSI has become a policy access to and affordability of nutritious food. check for governments and a country diagnostic Political risk and corruption frequently tool for investment. Non-governmental compound structural difficulties in these organisations and multilaterals have turned to countries. These issues are exacerbated by the risk of future climate change. The developing 1 FAO. (2015). “State of Food Insecurity in the World: In Brief”. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4671e.pdf nations at the bottom of the GFSI are the
4 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
countries that are most affected by weather- related loss events. Changing weather patterns, drought, increased rainfall and flooding will have a significant impact in the long term, potentially pushing up food prices and increasing production volatility. The World Bank estimates that, without any action on climate change, extreme weather events could lead to crop yield losses as high as 5% by 2030, which would drive up food prices. In the light of current and future food- security challenges in low-income countries— risks from climate change, population growth and potential spikes in food prices, among others—the GFSI highlights the fact that focusing on advancements in these countries must be a priority. How can low-income, developing countries move ahead despite the obstacles they face? Investment in infrastructure and food systems is the key to pushing these countries forward and narrowing the gap between the low-income and middle-income countries and their food-security systems. Governments will need to invest in the development and implementation of new technologies to make countries more resilient to changing weather patterns. Private investment must also be encouraged.
5 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Key findings
Food security has improved around the globe security. But weather and climate change- over the past five years, but hunger and food related risks, as well as market-distorting insecurity still persist. Governments, government food policies, pose risks to food multilaterals and the private sector should prices and food availability in the future. remain proactive in addressing food-security challenges around the world. Over three- For the first time since the launch of the GFSI quarters (89) of the 113 countries in the 2016 in 2012, Europe has experienced an GFSI have experienced food-security improvement in its food security. Geopolitical improvements over the past five years. These factors, average annual GDP growth of 1.4% positive developments have largely been driven across the region in the past year and favourable by rising incomes in most countries and general crop yields have supported Europe’s improvements in the global economy. Falling improvements. Falling oil prices have increased food prices have also positively impacted food food affordability (via lower costs for food
Changes in Affordability rankings in Europe, 2016
Score improvement from 2015 to 2016 Score deterioration from 2015 to 2016 22 Size of the bubble is directly related to 14 10 Russia the magnitude of the score improvement/ Norway 7 Finland deterioriation from 2015 to 2016 Sweden
1 Ireland 5 United Kingdom 24 =17 Belarus 8 Poland Belgium =15 19 Czech Slovakia 26 Republic 9 =17 Ukraine Switzerland Hungary 23 Romania 25 12 13 Serbia =20 Spain Italy Bulgaria =20
Greece Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
6 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
production inputs such as petroleum-based increasing prevalence of drought.2 Their lack of fertiliser, and reduced food transport costs), and direct access to the coast imposes additional economic growth has improved the region’s costs on trade: the World Bank found that the capacity to absorb the stresses of urbanisation. volume of international trade of a landlocked These factors have resulted in a 0.9-point rise in developing country is, on average, just 60% of the region’s overall food-security score since the trade volume of a comparable coastal 2015. Falling food prices and high food stocks country3 and that the lack of coastal access mean that there is a positive outlook for food increases transport costs.4 Poor infrastructure security in Europe over the next few years. and tariffs can introduce additional obstacles. However, an influx of refugees into cities across the region could strain food safety nets. Developing economies that prioritise investment in agricultural storage and Between 2015 and 2016, more countries transport infrastructure increase their experienced declines in their scores for capacity to ensure food security for national nutritional standards than burgeoning populations. Sustained investment, improvements. National nutritional standards— especially by the private sector, is critical if including national nutrition plans, national countries are to develop the infrastructure dietary guidelines and national nutritional capacity necessary to produce and transport monitoring—are critical in ensuring that both sufficient quantities of food in the future. government and the private sector direct their Sub-Saharan Africa lags behind other regions in focus towards improving food quality, safety and agricultural infrastructure: although storage nutrition. Thirty-six countries in the GFSI still do capacity across the region has improved, road not have national dietary guidelines that and port infrastructure is poor. Governments encourage populations to adopt a balanced, have committed themselves to improving ports, nutritious diet. Additionally, a number of roads and railways, but financing capacity countries—Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Malawi, Niger remains an obstacle. Private investment and and the UAE—had national nutrition plans or public-private partnerships (PPPs) are areas of strategies that expired in 2015; these countries opportunity that could be leveraged to overcome have not yet updated their lapsed plans. this obstacle.
Thirty-five of the GFSI’s 40 most food-secure Political instability exacerbates food countries in 2016 are coastal countries. insecurity. Functional democracies are notably Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, absent from the bottom of the GFSI rankings, Hungary and Slovakia—all high-income whereas countries that are experiencing armed countries that have large agricultural sectors and conflict, government instability and civil unrest are in close geographic proximity to other have experienced the largest deteriorations in top-performing countries—are the five food security since 2015. Civil wars in Yemen and landlocked countries in the top 40. The Syria have affected government and multilateral populations of landlocked countries, especially capacity to provide food-safety net programmes developing ones, often rely on farming as a and have undermined food safety: both countries
means of subsistence, but such states usually are 2 UN. (2015). “The Impact of Climate Change, Desertification and Land Degradation on the Development Prospects of Landlocked Developing located in dry regions where arid conditions Countries”. Available at http://unohrlls.org/custom-content/ prevail. As a result, these countries often have uploads/2015/11/Impact_Climate_Change_2015.pdf 3 World Bank and UN. (2014). “Improving Trade and Transport for Landlocked less irrigated agricultural land, which makes Developing Countries”. Available at http://unohrlls.org/custom-content/ uploads/2013/09/Improving-Trade-and-Transport-for-Landlocked- them particularly vulnerable to the effects of Developing-Countries.pdf 4 FAO. (2015). “Landlocked states face unique food challenges”. Available at climate change, such as rising temperatures and http://www.fao.org/europe/news/detail-news/en/c/273889/
7 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
no longer have functional agencies to ensure the safety of food. A recent coup d’état in Côte d’Ivoire, in addition to a drought that has hit cocoa production and strongly increased production volatility, has severely impacted food availability in that country.
Countries’ economic development and rising personal incomes improve the structural avenues to support food availability and affordability and strengthen governance; however, the most vulnerable populations in upper-middle-income and high-income countries remain food-insecure. As a country crosses the threshold to developed-nation status, the gap between its food-secure and food-insecure populations widens. Overall food-security successes and improvements require the government to revamp food policies that previously focused on improving the country’s overall food security, switching to policies that target the needs of its poorest people.
8 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
2016 GFSI overall rankings table Weighted total of all category scores (0-100 where 100=most favourable)
Rank Score /100 Rank Score /100 Rank Score /100
1 United States 86.6 39 Mexico 68.1 77 Honduras 48.2 2 Ireland 84.3 40 Slovakia 67.7 =78 Ghana 47.8 3 Singapore 83.9 41 Brazil 67.6 =78 Pakistan 47.8 =4 Australia 82.6 =42 China 65.5 80 Myanmar 46.5 =4 Netherlands 82.6 =42 Romania 65.5 81 Uganda 44.2 =6 France 82.5 44 Panama 64.4 82 Nepal 42.9 =6 Germany 82.5 45 Turkey 63.6 83 Kenya 42.7 =8 Canada 81.9 46 Belarus 63.1 84 Cote d’Ivoire 42.3 =8 United Kingdom 81.9 47 South Africa 62.9 85 Cameroon 41.6 10 Sweden 81.3 48 Russia 62.3 86 Senegal 41.0 11 New Zealand 81.1 49 Colombia 61.0 87 Rwanda 40.7 12 Norway 81.0 50 Bulgaria 60.6 88 Benin 40.2 13 Switzerland 80.9 51 Thailand 59.5 89 Cambodia 39.8 =14 Denmark 80.0 52 Serbia 59.4 90 Nigeria 39.4 =14 Portugal 80.0 53 Tunisia 57.9 91 Mali 39.3 16 Austria 79.3 54 Botswana 57.8 92 Tajikistan 38.6 =17 Finland 78.9 55 Peru 57.7 93 Togo 37.9 =17 Israel 78.9 56 Ecuador 57.5 94 Tanzania 36.9 19 Spain 77.7 =57 Azerbaijan 57.1 95 Bangladesh 36.8 20 Qatar 77.5 =57 Egypt 57.1 96 Syria 36.3 21 Belgium 77.4 =57 Vietnam 57.1 97 Guinea 35.0 =22 Italy 75.9 =60 Jordan 56.9 =98 Ethiopia 34.7 =22 Japan 75.9 =60 Venezuela 56.9 =98 Sudan 34.7 24 Chile 74.4 62 Morocco 55.5 100 Yemen 34.0 25 Czech Republic 73.9 63 Ukraine 55.2 101 Angola 33.7 26 Oman 73.6 64 Dominican Republic 55.1 102 Zambia 33.3 27 Kuwait 73.5 65 Sri Lanka 54.8 103 Laos 32.7 28 South Korea 73.3 66 Algeria 54.3 104 Madagascar 31.6 29 Poland 72.4 67 Paraguay 54.2 105 Malawi 31.4 30 United Arab Emirates 71.8 68 Kazakhstan 53.7 106 Burkina Faso 31.0 31 Greece 71.5 69 El Salvador 53.3 107 Congo (Dem. Rep.) 30.5 32 Saudi Arabia 71.1 70 Bolivia 51.6 =108 Haiti 29.4 33 Bahrain 70.1 71 Indonesia 50.6 =108 Mozambique 29.4 34 Hungary 69.3 72 Uzbekistan 49.8 110 Niger 29.0 35 Malaysia 69.0 73 Guatemala 49.6 111 Chad 28.6 36 Uruguay 68.4 74 Philippines 49.5 112 Sierra Leone 26.1 =37 Argentina 68.3 =75 India 49.4 113 Burundi 24.0 =37 Costa Rica 68.3 =75 Nicaragua 49.4
9 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Score changes (Net change in overall score, 2016 v 2015)
Score improved
Score declined
Score change Score change Score change Score change
Indonesia +2.7 Burkina Faso +1.0 Tunisia +0.6 Malaysia +0.1 Myanmar +2.7 Singapore +0.9 Sudan +0.6 Uruguay +0.1 United Kingdom +2.6 France +0.9 Austria +0.5 Serbia +0.1 Ecuador +2.4 Germany +0.9 Thailand +0.5 Uzbekistan +0.1 Colombia +2.2 Belgium +0.9 Guatemala +0.5 Uganda +0.1 Honduras +2.2 Italy +0.9 India +0.5 Nepal +0.1 Benin +2.2 Oman +0.9 Zambia +0.5 Cambodia +0.1 Ireland +2.0 Mexico +0.9 Netherlands +0.4 Yemen -4.2 Israel +2.0 United States +0.8 Canada +0.4 Cote d’Ivoire -3.9 Argentina +1.9 Australia +0.8 Paraguay +0.4 Haiti -2.0 Finland +1.7 Norway +0.8 Philippines +0.4 Syria -1.4 Nigeria +1. 7 Denmark +0.8 Pakistan +0.4 Venezuela -1.3 Togo +1.6 Spain +0.8 Tanzania +0.4 Sierra Leone -1.1 Chile +1.5 Greece +0.8 Chad +0.4 Botswana -0.9 Congo (Dem. Rep.) +1.4 Hungary +0.8 Poland +0.3 Burundi -0.8 Sweden +1.3 Brazil +0.8 Saudi Arabia +0.3 Malawi -0.6 Portugal +1.3 Russia +0.8 Kazakhstan +0.3 Bahrain -0.5 Czech Republic +1.3 Peru +0.8 Ethiopia +0.3 Turkey -0.5 Panama +1.3 Morocco +0.8 Madagascar +0.3 Angola -0.4 China +1.2 Ukraine +0.8 South Korea +0.2 Sri Lanka -0.1 Vietnam +1.2 Dominican Republic +0.8 Azerbaijan +0.2 Rwanda +1.2 Nicaragua +0.8 Bolivia +0.2 No change Costa Rica +1.1 Bangladesh +0.8 Ghana +0.2 Jordan Bulgaria +1.1 Japan +0.7 Kenya +0.2 Niger Algeria +1.1 Kuwait +0.7 Senegal +0.2 Tajikistan Guinea +1.1 Slovakia +0.7 Mali +0.2 Mozambique +1.1 Romania +0.7 Laos +0.2 Qatar +1.0 El Salvador +0.7 New Zealand +0.1 Belarus +1.0 Cameroon +0.7 Switzerland +0.1 Egypt +1.0 South Africa +0.6 United Arab Emirates +0.1
10 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Affordability
Category overview GDP per head ($ at PPP) The capacity to afford good-quality food without (Top ten ranked countries in the Affordability category, 2016) undue stress is a crucial aspect of food security. Qatar 143,910 The Affordability category explores the capacity Singapore 84,990 of a country’s people to pay for food, and the United Arab Emirates 73,610 costs that they may face both when the food Kuwait supply is stable and at times of food-related 65,070 shocks. The GFSI looks at affordability through United States 56,040 two lenses: first, whether people in a country Ireland 51,800 have sufficient means to buy food, and second, Netherlands 49,190 the quality of the public structures that exist to Austria 47,170 respond to shocks to food security. Germany 46,840 Affordability is measured across six indicators: Australia 45,220
l Food consumption as a share of household indicates a top ten overall score in the 2016 GFSI expenditure Source: Economist Intelligence Unit l Proportion of the population under the global poverty line (% of population with income rich developed countries with large agricultural under US$3.10/day at 2011 purchasing power sectors, strong food safety nets (such as in-kind parity, or PPP, exchange rates) food transfers, conditional cash transfers and l GDP per head at PPP exchange rates school food programmes) and well-developed l Agricultural import tariffs agricultural financial sectors: the US ranks third, l Presence of food safety-net programmes followed by Australia (fifth), Ireland (seventh), l Access to financing for farmers Austria (eighth) and Germany (ninth). The top gainers in the Affordability category Top performers and trends are Ecuador, Indonesia, Paraguay and Myanmar, The top performer in the Affordability category although all of them still rank outside the top 50 is Qatar, which, with GDP per head of in this category. In Ecuador, a fall in the share of US$134,073 (in PPP terms), is also the richest of income that households spend on food has the 113 countries covered by the GFSI. There are boosted the score. In addition, improved access three more countries in the top ten of the for small-scale Ecuadorean farmers to working Affordability category with similar economic capital and finance has lifted the score. In profiles to Qatar: Singapore (second), the UAE Indonesia, for the fifth straight year rising (third) and Kuwait (sixth). All of these are incomes have boosted the Affordability score. high-income countries with small populations Improved food safety nets is another factor: the and well-funded public sectors—all factors that Indonesian government completed its five-year directly benefit food affordability. Leaving aside Food and Nutrition Security Action Plan (2011- this group of city states and small resource-rich 15), which was aimed at helping the poor countries, the Affordability rankings are led by (particularly children aged under five and
11 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Affordability score improvements 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 Ecuador Indonesia Myanmar Paraguay Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
pregnant women) to access basic social services, The Affordability score is largely driven by adequate safe and nutritious food, and other income, the extent of poverty and the share of interventions such as micronutrient income that households spend on food supplementation. Myanmar, which is in the (together, these components account for nearly throes of transition from half a century of two-thirds of the weight in the Affordability dictatorship to a more liberal political order with indicator). In the short term, public policy is a fast-developing economy, has made gains on relatively powerless in changing these drivers. the back of a steady rise in incomes, the The impact of government policy often shows emergence of farm finance and improving food results only over long periods. Countries seeking safety-net programmes. immediate results in terms of improving food affordability should focus their efforts on Opportunities for improvement increasing public, multilateral and other funding In 2016, affordability declines in more than for food safety-net programmes and on ways of two-thirds of the countries covered by the GFSI. improving farmers’ access to finance. Food affordability peaked in 2014-15. Some 76 Countries whose governments fail to of the 113 countries have experienced a decline prioritise or leverage multilateral aid to in their citizens’ ability to afford food and develop food safety-net programmes tend to respond to price shocks and in governmental see little progress on food affordability. The capacity to support consumers with programmes countries that do make progress tend to be and policies when shocks occur. The fall in non-high-income countries with large rural Affordability scores in 2016 in the vast majority populations and a reasonably good, if basic, of countries has occurred despite falling global level of public accountability. Often they are inflation and oil prices and a record harvest in countries that, as a result of frequent exposure 2015. While rising incomes have tempered the to natural disasters, have developed the effects of falling food affordability, very few institutional capacity to respond to food countries have made progress on other shortages and crises. In the Asia & Pacific region, indicators. The number of people living below for instance, India, Indonesia and the the poverty line has fallen in only three countries Philippines have initiatives in place that help to (Botswana, Ghana and the Democratic Republic protect the poor from food-related shocks. of Congo), while the presence of food safety-net Myanmar, too, has made significant strides in programmes has expanded in only four and this area. Its emerging food-safety-net access to farm finance has improved in only programmes focus on post-disaster food aid Belarus, Chile and Ecuador. (following floods and landslides, for example),
12 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
school feeding programmes and food assistance credit makes up over 20% of total credit made to vulnerable people displaced by armed available in the budget in Belarus, the third- conflict.5 highest of the 90 countries that provide such There is plenty of potential in improving data. Chile is another country in which market- countries’ access to agricultural credit. More oriented farmers are no longer credit- than one-half of the 113 countries covered by constrained, and is among the 36 countries with the GFSI lack broad farmer finance or well- deep farm finance. developed multilateral farmer-finance The GFSI also includes an indicator that adds programmes. In eight countries, farmers have perspective on the cost of food in each country. virtually no access to government or multilateral The agricultural import tariff is measured as the farmer-financing programmes, while in another average applied most-favoured nation (MFN) 26 such access is very limited. There are only four rate on all agricultural imports. Higher tariff non-high-income countries—Belarus, Brazil, rates can hurt food security by raising the price Bulgaria and Romania—that provide deep and of both domestically sourced and imported food. broad finance for their farmers. Ecuador, Chile Trade policy affects affordability of food, but its and Belarus have experienced improvements in direction—liberalisation or protectionism—is not 2016. Belarus is channelling significant a function of economic development. For resources from its national budget into credit to example, Egypt applies a tariff rate of 60% while agriculture: according to the FAO, agricultural Norway and South Korea, both high-income
Agricultural import tariffs Top ten highest and lowest tariff rates
Norway 51.2%
Switzerland 36.1%
United States Turkey 42.2% 5.1% Tunisia 24.6% South Korea 52.7% Morocco 27.4% Egypt 60.6% Kuwait 5.1% Bahrain 5.3% Qatar 5.3% India Thailand United Arab Emirates 5.4% 31.3% Oman 33.4% Sudan 30.3% 5.2% Overall food security environment Singapore Best environment 1.1% Good environment Moderate environment Peru Needs improvement 4.1% Australia 1.2% New Zealand 1.4%
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit; World Trade Organisation.
5 UN World Food Programme (WFP). (2015). “10 Facts About Hunger In Myanmar”. Available at https://www.wfp.org/stories/10-facts-about-hunger- myanmar WFP. (2012). “WFP in Myanmar: Looking forward 2013-2017”. Available at http://www.themimu.info/sites/themimu.info/files/documents/ RefDoc_UNMyanmar_WFP_Looking%20Forward%20(2013-2017).pdf
13 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
countries, apply rates of over 50%. affordability and a country’s level of economic The link between trade liberalisation and food development. The data show, however, that security is complex.6 Our data show that scores middle-income and upper-middle-income for tariffs on agricultural imports declined in 105 countries have experienced the biggest of the 113 countries covered. Agricultural tariffs improvements in affordability, while low-income fell and boosted short-run food affordability in countries are being left behind. During 2012-16 only seven countries and Egypt’s agricultural the Affordability score of low-income countries import tariff score remained unchanged. The has improved by only 1.9%; this compares with weakest performers in this category represent a rises of 5.2% for middle-income countries and of variety of regions and income levels: Egypt (with 5.4% for upper-middle-income countries tariffs of 60.6%), South Korea (52.7%) and respectively. In the same period the Affordability Norway (51.2%) have the highest agricultural score for rich countries has hardly changed, tariff rates. By contrast, Australia (1.2%), New improving by just 0.1%. The average gain for all Zealand (1.4%) and Singapore (1.1%) have the countries is 2.4%. The findings suggest that once lowest agricultural tariff rates and are the best a country reaches a certain level of development, performers on this indicator. Angola experienced often associated with higher income but also a 24-point worsening in its score as a result of a with improved governance, its capacity to deal rise from 9.8% to 23.2% in its tariff rate, with food insecurity improves rapidly and then resulting in a 2.4-point deterioration in its remains high. Such capacity gains tend to be overall Affordability score. Trade policy alone is substantial when countries make the transition unlikely to guarantee net benefits in food from low-income to middle-income status, but security. However, in combination with peter out once nations reach upper-middle- complementary policies that facilitate the income status or become high-income countries. process of adjustment to changing patterns of The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries production, and measures that shield perform well on Affordability because of their disadvantaged groups from fluctuations in extremely high levels of annual income per head, agricultural wages, trade policy has a role to play. averaging US$67,795; this compares with an average of US$41,092 across high-income Noteworthy findings countries and US$1,424 in low-income The 2016 GFSI shows that average global food countries, and a global average of US$18,711. affordability peaked in 2015. In 2016 it has Additionally, the GCC members rank consistently improved in only Central & South America (+0.3 highly on the agricultural imports tariff points), Asia & Pacific (+0.2) and Europe (+0.1). indicator. To address the widening gap between The average Affordability score has fallen across consumption and production, GCC countries have all income categories with the exception of steered down their agricultural imports tariffs. upper-middle-income countries. The most Some 60–90% of food consumption in the GCC recent reading comes after four straight years of countries is met by imports.7 Unlike other rises (from 2012 to 2015) in the global countries, they have steered away from notions Affordability score. of food self-sufficiency, in part because they do There is a direct relationship between food not rely on revenue from taxes on trade.
7 Houcine Boughanmi, Sarath Kodithuwakku and Jeevika Weerahewa. (2014). “Food and Agricultural Trade in the GCC: An Opportunity for South Asia?”. 6 FAO. (2003). “Trade Reforms and Food Security”. Available at ftp://ftp.fao. Available at http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Food%20and%20 org/docrep/fao/005/y4671e/y4671e00.pdf Agricultural%20Trade%20in%20the%20GCC_Jeevika_Sept2014.pdf
14 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Availability
Category overview sufficiency of supply, public expenditure on This category assesses factors that influence the agricultural R&D and the existence of crop supply of food and the ease of access to food. It storage facilities. It ranks third on food loss examines how structural aspects determine a (only Finland and Singapore perform better). The country’s capacity to produce and distribute US tops this year’s overall GFSI largely because food, and explores elements that might create of its strong performance in this category (it bottlenecks or risks to robust availability. ranks joint third on Affordability and third on Availability is measured across eight Quality & Safety). indicators: Nearly all countries in the top ten of the l Sufficiency of supply Availability category are from Europe or North l Public expenditure on agricultural research America (the sole exception is New Zealand, and development (R&D) which ranks eighth). All of them are stable, l Agricultural infrastructure developed economies that prioritise l Volatility of agricultural production infrastructure investment. The top 20 countries l Political stability risk in the Availability category are all multiparty l Corruption democracies. Six countries in the top ten are also l Urban absorption capacity in the top ten of the EIU’s Democracy Index, l Food loss which ranks the state of democracy in 165 countries. Affordable food has less value if access to it is There is a strong correlation between the difficult. Economies with fewer structural Availability score and the overall GFSI score (at restrictions on food availability and more 0.95). The closest correlation exists between the advanced agricultural markets tend to have overall Availability score and sufficiency of food environments that are more conducive to food supply (measured by average daily calorie intake security. Such environments are often less at risk and dependency on chronic food aid); and also of food supply shocks and can handle shocks between overall Availability and the quality of better when they arise. agricultural infrastructure (namely road and port infrastructure and crop storage capacity). The Top performers and trends level of corruption—a proxy for the quality of Economies with fewer structural restrictions on governance—is also highly negatively correlated food availability (from both markets and with a country’s capacity to ensure food government) and more advanced agricultural availability (at -0.77). Other indicators, such as markets (in terms of infrastructure and public public expenditure on agricultural R&D, display a support) tend to have environments that are looser link with overall availability. suited to delivering food security. The US is the top performer in the Opportunities for improvement Availability category, followed by Ireland, Although it requires significant investment, Germany and France. The US performs well on developing agricultural infrastructure, most of the eight indicators, especially including crop storage facilities, roads and ports,
15 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Sufficiency of supply v Availability Correlation (x,y) 0.83
100
80
60 Sufficiency of supply
40
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 Availability score Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
Agricultural infrastructure v Availability Correlation (x,y) 0.88
100
80
60 Agricultural infrastructure 40
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 Availability score Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
is fundamental to improving a country’s food Horn of Africa.8 In Côte d’Ivoire (which ranks availability. Countries with poor road and port 88th for agricultural infrastructure), the infrastructure, particularly across the Sub- government plans to increase substantially the Saharan African region, will struggle to deal with capacity of the port of Abidjan by 2020-21 to the food access problems faced by remote rural reduce congestion and establish the port as a key populations. In landlocked Ethiopia, which ranks transit point for seaborne trade in West Africa. 60th in this indicator, the government has Low-income countries are underinvesting in accelerated the building of a new railway line— public-sector agricultural R&D. This is despite the country’s only rail line—to bring 98% of its the fact that such nations’ farm sectors typically food supplies from Djibouti, on the coast of the
8 The Economist. (2016). “On the edge of disaster”. Available at http://www. economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21693624-governments- achievements-appear-increasingly-precarious-edge
16 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
account for a much larger share of incomes and R&D investment is not uncommon among employment than is the case in richer countries. resource-rich countries with small populations, As a result, many low-income countries lack the and in Oman’s case is a result of the capacity to make use of advances in technology government’s decision to diversify the economy and knowledge to reduce food insecurity. They away from oil.10 Botswana also has a small urgently need to develop this capacity so that agricultural sector (accounting for 3% of GDP). they can raise yields, develop more climate- Its only research institution runs a cereal resilient crops and avoid environmental improvement programme that aims to increase degradation. Much of this kind of investment is of crop production and contribute to national food a public-good nature, so that public funds will security.11 have to lead the way in order to secure these social gains.9 The funding of agricultural research Noteworthy findings in developing countries by the public sector and Almost all high-income countries are near the donor agencies has fallen since the 1980s, and top of the rankings in this category in the current this trend needs to be reversed. In developed index. Following declines in their overall scores countries, which tend to have the financial throughout 2012-15, rich countries’ Availability infrastructure and regulatory frameworks that scores have improved in 2016. Rising urban encourage private-sector investment, absorption capacity in most developed shortcomings in agricultural R&D are less of an economies has boosted scores. Urban absorption obstacle to ensuring long-term food security. capacity compares a country’s real GDP growth Botswana and South Africa invest significantly rate with its urban population growth rate and is more in agricultural R&D than other upper- a proxy for the country’s capacity to feed its middle-income countries; they rank fifth and population in the face of urbanisation. Rapid eighth respectively in this indicator. Relative to urbanisation has the potential to place strains the size of its economy, Oman, which is ranked on infrastructure and can lead to difficulties in first, invests more in agricultural research than feeding a growing urban population, particularly any other country. A high level of agricultural if a country’s economy is not growing rapidly
Public expenditure on agricultural R&D, 2016 Number of countries in the GFSI based on percentage of agricultural GDP spent on R&D 70 60 61 50
40
30
20 27
10 3 9 7 2 0 0 0 4 0–0.5% 0.51–1% 1.01–1.5% 1.51–2% 2.01–2.5% 2.51–3% 3.01–3.5% 3.51–4% 4.01+%
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
10 Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI). (2014). “Oman”. Available at http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/ 9 Timothy Reeves, Per Pinstrup-Andersen and Rajul Pandya-Lorch. (2009). “Food id/128676 Security and the Role of Agricultural Research”. Available at http://nabc.cals. 11 FAO. (2009). “Plant breeding programs in Botswana”. Available at http:// cornell.edu/Publications/Reports/nabc_09/09_4_6_Reeves.pdf www.fao.org/in-action/plant-breeding/our-partners/africa/botswana/en/
17 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Availability v EIU Democracy Index Correlation (x,y) 0.72
100
Affordability 80
60
40
20 0 20 40 60 80 100 EIU Democracy Index Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
enough to pay for the changes.12 With incomes winning economist, Amartya Sen, that regime type rising and the rush to the cities slowing, in 2016 is what matters in terms of political responsiveness urban absorption capacity has improved in 108 to the threat of famine and that “there has never out of 113 countries (it has declined in five and been a famine in a functioning multiparty is unchanged in Sri Lanka). democracy”.13 Professor Sen argues that regular Volatility of agricultural production is largely free and fair elections, independent courts and independent of the level of development; in legislatures, the media and civil society all work to other words, countries in all income groups and uphold the basic rights of citizens, including the regions experience large swings in agricultural right to food. Our data may serve as a reminder output. In 2016, Asia & Pacific displaces North that, while market and production failures can lead America as the region with the most stable to food insecurity, often institutional failures—and agricultural production. Central & South America notably the lack of broad-based, accountable comes third, followed by the GCC countries, governance—are its main cause. Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East and Food availability and political instability are North Africa. The region that experiences the closely related. The 40 countries at the bottom biggest swings in agricultural output, Europe, is of the Availability category are prone to political among those best equipped to absorb them, as instability and the overthrow of their fairly high personal incomes and development governments. Nearly one-half of them were levels counterbalance production volatility. among the 40 countries most likely to experience A country’s ability to avoid food insecurity is a coup d’état in 2015 according to a ranking of closely linked to political factors, and especially coup risk14 by Jay Ulfelder, an American political the type of political system. The countries with the scientist who specialises in forecasting political lowest scores in the Availability category are development and instability. almost all flawed democracies, one-party states or authoritarian governments. The findings are 13 Amartya Sen. (2001). Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, cited in Thomas Plümper and Eric Neumayer, “Famine Mortality, Rational consistent with the hypothesis of a Nobel Prize- Political Inactivity, and International Food Aid”, in World Development Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 50-61, 2009, URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/ geographyAndEnvironment/whosWho/profiles/neumayer/pdf/ 12 The big improvements in 2016 are in part the result of a statistical effect. To Faminemortality.pdf calculate urban absorption capacity, our model uses GDP growth in 2014-16—a 14 “Statistical Assessments of Coup Risk for 2015”. Available at https:// period of accelerating growth. The latest available data on urbanisation, dartthrowingchimp.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/statistical-assessments-of- however, cover 2012 14—a period of slowing urbanisation. coup-risk-for-2015/
18 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Quality & Safety
Category overview the food-safety indicator, Romania and Turkey The third category in the GFSI explores the are the only non-high-income countries that nutritional quality of average diets and the food match the scores of high-income countries such safety environment in each country. In the as Austria, Germany and Japan. The type of literature on food security, this category is political system appears to matters greatly: all sometimes referred to as “utilisation”, because it the top performers in the Quality & Safety explores the energy and nutrient intake, safe category are multiparty democracies with good food preparation and the diversity of the diet.15 governance. The best-performing authoritarian Food quality and safety is measured across government, at 25th, is Oman. five indicators: Portugal ranks first in the Quality & Safety l Diet diversification category, followed by France, the US, Australia l Nutritional standards and Greece. Portugal comes first for the fifth l Micronutrient availability straight year on the back of high scores in the l Protein quality indicators relating to diet diversification, l Food safety nutritional standards, food safety and protein The Quality & Safety category moves beyond quality. Interestingly, four countries that are the traditional welfare metrics, such as poverty outside the top ten in the overall GSFI, as well as and issues of access and supply, and explores the in both the Availability and Affordability overall quality of food supplies, based on the categories, make the top ten when it comes to understanding that food security requires that Quality & Safety. They are Greece (fifth), Spain people have access to nutritious food that meets (sixth), Finland (eighth) and Israel (tenth)—all dietary needs. high-income coastal countries with big fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Top performers and trends The countries that have achieved the largest High-income countries with good governance improvements are led by Benin (+4.7), perform especially well in the Quality & Safety Philippines (+2.3), Peru (+2.2) and Venezuela category. The best 27 performers are all high- (+2.1); however, most of the countries that see income countries. They dominate the rankings the biggest rises in their scores are ranked in the for nearly all the indicators that make up the bottom half of both the overall index and the Quality & Safety category. Two non-high-income Quality & Safety category. The Quality & Safety countries, Mexico and Malaysia, are present in score has improved for 35 countries; the main the top 20 in the micronutrient availability driver of this improvement is a broad rise in the indicator; Belarus and Brazil are the non-high- percentage of the population with access to income countries that make the top quartile in potable water, where Cambodia (+3.8), Mali the category that measures protein quality. In (+3.5) and Malawi (+3.4) made the biggest
15 FAO. (2008). “An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security”. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al936e/al936e00.pdf
19 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Change in access to potable water Difference in percentage of population with access to potable water 2012 v 2016 10
8
6
4
2 9.0 8.1 7.6 7.3 6.2 6.1 5.0 4.8 4.4 4.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -1.0 -1.2 -1.7 0
-2 Cambodia Ethiopia Laos Vietnam Ghana Bulgaria Ukraine Haiti Mali Malawi Paraguay Uganda Sierra Kazakhstan Dominican Algeria Leone Republic Source: Economist Intelligence Unit; World Bank.
gains. Algeria, Kazakhstan, Peru and four other fallen across regions and income groups. The countries have seen an improvement in the absence of national dietary guidelines in some qualitative indicator that measures the countries is an area of weakness: 36 countries— prevalence of a formal grocery sector. mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East The overall food-safety composite score, and North Africa, and Central Asia—do not have which measures the existence of food-safety guidelines that cover the entire population. In surveillance and regulations, access to potable addition, in 19 countries, especially poorer water and access to refrigerated foods, is closely Central & South American countries, linked to a country’s performance in providing a governmental capacity to monitor diets and varied diet and food safety. There is a fairly close nutrition is inadequate. Prioritisation of national link between the overall score in the Quality & nutritional standards can ultimately lead to Safety category and the presence of a formal greater dietary diversity and consumption of key grocery sector, which helps ensure consistent micronutrients and high-quality protein. and accessible food products (and serves as a The national nutrition plans in many GCC and proxy indicator for access to refrigeration). Sub-Saharan African countries have expired, and The combination of a big developed at the time when the research for the 2016 GFSI agricultural sector and coastal access matter was completed there was no evidence of greatly when it comes to countries’ Quality & extensions of most recent plans or approval of Safety scores. The ten best performers in the new ones. As a result, the GCC region has overall Quality & Safety category are almost all experienced by far the steepest decline (-10.3 coastal countries with big agricultural and points), and has fallen behind Asia & Pacific and fisheries sectors. The only landlocked countries also Central & South America. There is some that make the top 30 in the Quality & Safety evidence that Malawi, Burkina Faso and Niger are category are large agricultural producers with in the process of updating their nutritional modern supply chains, namely Austria, plans, but no dates for implementation have Switzerland and the Czech Republic. been given. Although advanced economies have more Opportunities for improvement diverse diets and their populations consume For the first time since the launch of the GFSI in more high-quality protein and micronutrients, 2012, the average score in the nutritional they also have higher levels of obesity. Obesity standards indicator—a composite of national is a form of malnutrition, and is caused by the nutrition plans, national dietary guidelines excessive consumption of macro- and/or and national nutritional monitoring—has micronutrients. Our data show that it affects
20 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Obesity in the Gulf Cooperation Council take decades for public health interventions to 2010 v 2014 show results. Percentage of the population 18+ with a body mass index of 30.0+
Bahrain 32.5 Noteworthy findings 35.1 Ongoing armed conflict in Yemen and Syria led Kuwait 36.8 39.7 to sharp falls in those countries’ scores in the Oman 28.4 30.9 Quality & Safety category in 2016. Yemen’s Qatar 38.1 score has plummeted by 5.9 points to an all-time 42.3 low for the country of 22.2–the biggest drop of Saudi Arabia 32.0 34.7 any country since the GFSI’s inception. Syria’s United Arab Emirates 34.5 37.2 score, meanwhile, has plunged by 5.8 points to 2010 34.2. The deteriorations are driven by huge 2014 declines in food safety in both countries, owing Source: Economist Intelligence Unit; World Health Organisation to their lack of functional agencies to ensure the safety and health of food. The list of countries population groups in both developed and that have experienced the largest falls in their developing countries. According to the Lancet, scores in the Quality & Safety category yet again the number of obese people globally more than demonstrates the close link between political doubled to 2.1bn between 1980 and 2013, with instability and food insecurity. Among the the US, China and India having the highest weakest performers are countries that have numbers of obese people.16 The GFSI data show recently experienced armed conflict and coups that the GCC countries, which have seen the most d’état, such as Burkina Faso and Côte d’Ivoire. dramatic change in diets in recent decades, have Functional democracies are notably absent from an extremely high proportion of obese people in the bottom of the list. their populations (at 36.7%). The correlation between countries’ levels of There is tremendous room for improvement development and the availability of here: obesity is one of the largest drivers of micronutrients is relatively low. Factors other healthcare costs in developed economies, and is than income, such as culture and coastal access, set to become a big burden in developing play a significant role in determining national countries. Developing and developed economies diets and thus influence access to could do more to fight obesity and its causes— micronutrients. All of the top 20 performers have especially its nutritional causes. Possible public access to the sea; many of them are located on health interventions include a tax on sugar and established maritime trade routes. High-income measures to reduce consumption of countries in the Asia & Pacific region, and also hydrogenated fats. Many countries–including the southern European nations, do particularly the UK and Thailand–are seriously discussing well. The latter group of countries’ introducing a sugar tax. The Philippine “Mediterranean diet” is known to be among the government introduced a tax on sweetened healthiest diets globally, with minerals derived drinks in November 2014. Policymakers in India from vegetables and fruits, wholemeal cereals, have proposed a 40% tax on sweetened drinks.17 nuts, virgin olive oil and fish lowering the risk of But progress has been slow, and it is likely to deficient micronutrient intake.18
16 Marie Ng et al. “Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013”. Lancet, Volume 384 , Issue 9,945 , pp. 766-781. 17 The Nation. (2016). “Thailand one of many countries waging war on sugar via a tax on sweetened soft drinks”. Available at http://www.nationmultimedia. 18 Itandehui Castro-Quezada, Blanca Román-Viñas and Lluís Serra-Majem. com/national/Thailand-one-of-many-countries-waging-war-on- (2014). “The Mediterranean Diet and Nutritional Adequacy: A Review”. sugar-30285928.html Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3916858/
21 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Regional comparisons
Category overview Overall food security rankings in North America The regional perspective on overall food security Weighted total of all category scores can shed light on the commonalities that often (0-100 where 100=most favourable) exist between and within regions. It also offers Rank Score /100 insight into the GFSI’s individual components, 1 United States 86.6 their interaction, and possible solutions to 2 Canada 81.9 food-security issues common to many countries. 3 Mexico 68.1 Source: Economist Intelligence Unit Top performers and trends The best-performing regions overall in the GFSI fluctuations in agricultural output (on account of are North America, Europe and the GCC. their extreme climate and small agricultural Unsurprisingly, their performances are closely sectors), high political stability risk and linked to their high levels of average income per struggles with urban absorption are their main head and the positive impact of this on food weaknesses. Most GCC countries have seen an affordability. The average household in North explosion of urbanisation in recent decades.19 America, for instance, spends a mere 13% of its This unprecedented process has led to the loss or income on food, while in Europe the proportion is degradation of agricultural land (urban only slightly higher, at 17.2%. This compares absorption capacity is particularly limited in with 34.9% in Asia & Pacific and 40.6% Sub- Kuwait and Oman). In addition, the expiry of Saharan Africa. The presence of food safety-net national nutrition plans in Bahrain and the UAE programmes, access to farm finance and low in 2015 has contributed to these states’ weaker poverty rates drive the top performers’ scores in performances in the Availability and Quality & the Affordability category. Factors that are Safety categories. strongly correlated with countries’ performances After years of deteriorations in its scores, in in the Availability and Quality & Safety categories 2016 Europe has, for the first time, recorded a include quality of agricultural infrastructure, greater gain in the overall index than any micronutrient availability, and public policy other region. (It is followed by Central & South regarding nutritional and food standards. America and North America.) Economic recovery Three GCC member countries—Qatar, the UAE is one factor driving Europe’s improvement, as and Kuwait—rank highly in the Affordability urban absorption capacity has risen by an category. Qatar tops the rankings, followed by average of more than 20 points in the region. All the UAE (third) and Kuwait (sixth). All three are European countries see improvements, with the high-income countries with a low prevalence of PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and poverty and plenty of public money flowing into
their small agricultural sectors. Poor scores in 19 Antar AbouKorin. (2014). “Impacts of Rapid Urbanisation in the Arab World: the Case of Dammam Metropolitan Area, Saudi Arabia”. Available at https:// the Availability and Quality & Safety categories www.researchgate.net/publication/263847805_Impacts_of_Rapid_ Urbanisation_in_the_Arab_World_the_Case_of_Dammam_Metropolitan_ hold back the GCC countries’ overall GFSI scores; Area_Saudi_Arabia
22 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Overall food security rankings in Europe infrastructure is an area of particular weakness, Weighted total of all category scores but investment in port development would also (0-100 where 100=most favourable) be beneficial. In many low-income countries a Rank Score /100 lack of adequate crop storage facilities still 1 Ireland 84.3 leads to massive post-harvest losses. This leaves 2 Netherlands 82.6 less food for consumption, and drives up the =3 France 82.5 price of food and the availability of seeds. Many =3 Germany 82.5 storage facilities are in poor condition, are 5 United Kingdom 81.9 infested or their capacity is simply too small. In 6 Sweden 81.3 Sub-Saharan Africa, according to the FAO, 7 Norway 81.0 8 Switzerland 80.9 one-third of all food produced is lost before it =9 Denmark 80.0 reaches the marketplace. Investment in storage =9 Portugal 80.0 space within the supply chain is seen as a means 11 Austria 79.3 by which significant improvements in food 12 Finland 78.9 Overall food security rankings in 13 Spain 77.7 Sub-Saharan Africa 14 Belgium 77.4 Weighted total of all category scores 15 Italy 75.9 (0-100 where 100=most favourable) 16 Czech Republic 73.9 Rank Score /100 17 Poland 72.4 1 South Africa 62.9 18 Greece 71.5 2 Botswana 57.8 19 Hungary 69.3 3 Ghana 47.8 20 Slovakia 67.7 4 Uganda 44.2 21 Romania 65.5 5 Kenya 42.7 22 Belarus 63.1 6 Cote d’Ivoire 42.3 23 Russia 62.3 7 Cameroon 41.6 24 Bulgaria 60.6 8 Senegal 41.0 25 Serbia 59.4 9 Rwanda 40.7 26 Ukraine 55.2 10 Benin 40.2 Source: Economist Intelligence Unit 11 Nigeria 39.4 12 Mali 39.3 Spain) recording some of the biggest gains. 13 Togo 37.9 Higher incomes have reduced the pressure in 14 Tanzania 36.9 urban settings, where reliance on purchased 15 Guinea 35.0 food is a leading factor in households’ food =16 Ethiopia 34.7 insecurity within poor populations. =16 Sudan 34.7 18 Angola 33.7 19 Zambia 33.3 Opportunities for improvement 20 Madagascar 31.6 The public sector, multilaterals and the private 21 Malawi 31.4 sector should consider investing more heavily in 22 Burkina Faso 31.0 infrastructure development, especially in 23 Congo (Dem. Rep.) 30.5 Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa lags 24 Mozambique 29.4 behind its peers—including the poorest 25 Niger 29.0 countries in Asia & Pacific and Central & South 26 Chad 28.6 America (the regions with the second- and 27 Sierra Leone 26.1 third-weakest scores respectively for the 28 Burundi 24.0 infrastructure-related indicators). Road Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
23 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
security can be made in the next few decades.20 Overall food security rankings in Asia & Pacific, Public expenditure on agricultural R&D is a by income level, 2016 Scores, 0-100 where 100 = best weakness across all regions and income groups. Only four countries (Ireland, the Rank Score /100 Netherlands, Oman and the US) spend more than 1 Singapore 83.9 4% of their agricultural GDP on R&D, and an 2 Australia 82.6 additional five countries spend more than 2%. 3 New Zealand 81.1 4 Japan 75.9 Although the private sector has a substantial 5 South Korea 73.3 role to play in investing in agricultural R&D, 6 Malaysia 69.0 governments need to lead the way. Many 7 China 65.5 countries are resource-constrained and thus 8 Thailand 59.5 unable to fund R&D themselves, but they can 9 *Azerbaijan 57.1 prioritise developing financing structures and 9 Vietnam 57.1 institutional capacity to encourage private- 11 Sri Lanka 54.8 sector investment. Without prioritisation of 12 *Kazakhstan 53.7 innovation and technologies to increase 13 Indonesia 50.6 efficiency and market access, national food- 14 *Uzbekistan 49.8 security systems will struggle to improve. 15 Philippines 49.5 Public-sector investment in technology is an 16 India 49.4 important driver of countries’ ability to improve 17 Pakistan 47.8 18 Myanmar 46.5 food availability by reducing food loss, 19 *Nepal 42.9 developing transport networks, increasing 20 Cambodia 39.8 supply, diversifying diets and widening the 21 *Tajikistan 38.6 availability of nutrients. 22 Bangladesh 36.8 For many farmers in developing countries, a 23 *Laos 32.7 lack of access to farm finance is a binding High income constraint on improving production efficiency Upper-middle income and adopting better technologies. Twenty-five of Lower-middle income Low-income the 28 countries in the Sub-Saharan region (the * Land-locked Source: Economist Intelligence Unit exceptions being Botswana, Kenya and South Africa) are positioned near the bottom of the in the GFSI is wide. rankings for this indicator. Governments, In the Asia & Pacific region, there is astrong multilaterals and the non-governmental sector correlation between food security and income should redouble their efforts in the area of levels. The region’s five most food-secure agricultural finance. countries are high-income countries, while the next four are all upper-middle-income countries. Noteworthy findings However, Sri Lanka and Vietnam (both lower- Structural elements play an important role in middle-income countries) rank higher than determining food security. In regions that upper-middle-income Kazakhstan, owing to include countries with differing economic availability issues in Kazakhstan that are driven systems, policy environments, agricultural by high volatility of agricultural production and infrastructure and nutritional standards, the gap political stability risk. The countries in Asia & between the strongest and weakest performers Pacific that are ranked 13th-18th in the region are all lower-middle-income countries. Nepal
20 Guardian. (2015). “Why we must invest in local food storage in sub-Saharan and Cambodia outrank their low-income peers, Africa”. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- business/2015/jan/15/invest-local-food-storage-sub-saharan-africa Bangladesh and Laos (both countries with a high
24 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
incidence of poverty that struggle with food Overall food security rankings in Central & affordability), and also Tajikistan (a landlocked South America Weighted total of all category scores lower-middle-income country). (0-100 where 100=most favourable) In Europe, the founding members of the EU Rank Score /100 lead the overall food-security rankings, followed 1 Chile 74.4 by later entrants to the bloc and countries on the 2 Uruguay 68.4 periphery. Greece ranks third in the Quality & =3 Argentina 68.3 Safety category, but a deep and long-lasting =3 Costa Rica 68.3 recession has relegated it to 18th place out of 5 Brazil 67.6 26 European countries in the overall GFSI. 6 Panama 64.4 Greece is the poorest performer (bar Hungary) 7 Colombia 61.0 among Europe’s high-income countries. 8 Peru 57.7 A stable and well-functioning policy 9 Ecuador 57.5 10 Venezuela 56.9 environment is crucial for food security. More 11 Dominican Republic 55.1 food-insecure regions, as well as individual 12 Paraguay 54.2 countries, frequently have higher political 13 El Salvador 53.3 stability risk and corruption levels, alongside 14 Bolivia 51.6 weaker institutions that fail to provide 15 Guatemala 49.6 appropriate government regulation and 16 Nicaragua 49.4 oversight. For example, the weakest performer 17 Honduras 48.2 among high-income nations globally is 18 Haiti 29.4 Venezuela: the country is in the midst of the Source: Economist Intelligence Unit world’s deepest recession, and this is exacerbating political stability risk and By contrast, the more food-secure regions corruption, lowering urban absorption capacity have robust policy environments that facilitate and weakening social safety nets. food accessibility through stable supply chains and support affordability through food safety- Overall food security rankings in Middle East net programmes. The Asia & Pacific region has & North Africa made the biggest gain (of +2.1 points) in Weighted total of all category scores (0-100 where 100=most favourable) establishing functioning food-safety net Rank Score /100 programmes, led by Indonesia and Myanmar, 1 Israel 78.9 while Sub-Saharan Africa has improved by 0.8 2 Qatar 77.5 points on this indicator. The Middle East & North 3 Oman 73.6 Africa, with governance structures remaining 4 Kuwait 73.5 under stress in many countries following the 5 United Arab Emirates 71.8 Arab Spring, recorded the biggest deterioration 6 Saudi Arabia 71.1 in regional score (of -3.4 points) as countries’ 7 Bahrain 70.1 capacity to protect the poor from food-related 8 Turkey 63.6 shocks declined further. 9 Tunisia 57.9 Finally 35 countries in the GSFI’s top 40 are 10 Egypt 57.1 coastal countries. The five landlocked countries 11 Jordan 56.9 that make the top 40 are Switzerland, Austria, 12 Morocco 55.5 13 Algeria 54.3 the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia—all 14 Syria 36.3 high-income countries with big agricultural 15 Yemen 34.0 sectors and close geographical proximity to Source: Economist Intelligence Unit top-performing countries.
25 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Five year trends and outlook
Over the past five years, the Global Food Security global economy—most countries experienced Index (GFSI) has become a tool used worldwide slow but steady progress. across sectors to prioritise areas of action and Remarkable transformations have taken place. improve national, regional and global food- As incomes rise and development occurs, the gap security systems. Trends data from the index between children aged under five years in poor and have been used to identify metrics that drive wealthy families with regard to stunting closes, progress and systemic issues that impede it: while inequalities of access to education, countries that have invested in infrastructure, healthcare, water, sanitation and reproductive programmes, financing avenues and policy- health also diminish. In Brazil, stunting has fallen based food-security and nutrition initiatives from 37.1% to just 7.1% over the past 33 years. have made the greatest steps forward. However, Despite this rising affluence in upper-middle- pressures on food-security systems are growing, income countries, however, many people remain and both governments and the private sector hungry. In these countries and in high-income must focus on addressing global food-security ones, food insecurity remains rooted in disparities challenges. GFSI trends analysis not only tracks in ethnicity, gender, income and education. advances, but also highlights weaknesses in Economic growth is no panacea. A 10% rise in food-security structures that must be a focus for GDP cuts chronic malnutrition by only 6%.21 The the future. GFSI’s five-year trends show that once a country reaches a certain threshold of economic development, its capacity to battle food Economic development and food- insecurity improves dramatically. Low-income security policy countries (those with GDP per head of US$1,045 or less) have been making only very gradual Looking back progress on food security: in 2012-16 their In the quest to improve food security, economic average affordability score has risen by just growth is an essential ingredient. As countries 1.9%. This compares with increases of 5.2% and develop and most peoples’ incomes rise, food 5.4% respectively in the scores of middle-income systems-related infrastructure and institutions and upper-middle-income countries. Rising are built and food security improves. Economic incomes can pull countries some way up the growth and development raise the incomes of slope towards greater food security, but they are the poor and improve their ability to gain access not sufficient to enable a country to reach the to food, health and education, while providing point where rapid progress in reducing food governments with the cash needed to make insecurity occurs. growth more equitable. The GSFI shows that in a 21 Maximo Torrero. (2014). “Food security brings economic growth—not the favourable global environment in 2012-16—with other way around”. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Available at https://www.ifpri.org/blog/food-security-brings-economic- historically low food prices and a recovering growth-not-other-way-around
26 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Looking forward agricultural production remain favourable; What can governments do? Greater progress wheat output reached 733m tonnes in fiscal year requires that country-based food-security 2015/16–a record high. The GFSI mirrors these policies shift from addressing the entire developments: Seven out of the biggest wheat population to targeting the most vulnerable production countries–China, Russia, the US, groups. Often, countries opt for blanket food Ukraine, Australia, Pakistan and Turkey–saw subsidies, but targeted cash-transfer improvements in the availability category in the programmes can be a more effective way of past year. Stocks of the most consumed grain in ensuring food security for the neediest. Food the world, maize, are healthy too. Rice output, banks, which meet the nutritional needs of by contrast, declined in 2015 and this year’s vulnerable populations and redistribute surplus drought in Southeast Asia will weigh on output food, are another option. India’s school lunch and push up prices. programme, the world’s largest, may be A decline in agricultural prices is beneficial for imperfect, but it has largely been a success. One consumers, but it can be disastrous for countries of the most powerful tools in terms of improving with large rural populations that depend on food food security is to contain food price inflation. production for their incomes. Thailand, whose While the absolute number of hungry people agricultural output exceeds that of the African in the world is still rising, in upper-middle- continent, has been hard hit by the collapse in income and high-income countries the poor, in agricultural prices, which has been compounded particular, suffer from obesity. The battle with by two consecutive droughts and the military this common form of malnutrition underlines the government’s decision to cut agricultural importance of tax and other fiscal instruments in subsidies put in place by an elected government any sustainable food-security strategy. Food it ousted in 2014. policies that make highly energy-dense foods cheaper than fruit and vegetables need to be Looking forward reconsidered. Healthy foods need to be made In the short term, food prices are likely to remain more accessible to low-income populations. All below their 2011 peak. Further out, however, of this requires good science, strong leadership, rising global demand for food, changing weather and evidence-based policymaking and consumer patterns as a result of climate change and policy education. interventions are likely to lead to higher and more volatile food prices. This may threaten further progress on food security. Volatile food prices Food price hikes have devastating consequences. The Asian Development Bank Looking back estimates that an additional 112m people in Asia Since 2012 global food security–as measured by and the Pacific could have escaped poverty had the Global Food Security Index (GFSI)—has food prices not risen in the late 2000s.22 improved. Falling food prices, along with rising Uncertainty around food prices tends to crowd incomes, have played a major role. out household spending on health and Since February 2011, global food prices have education, and also has a negative impact on plunged 30% amid oversupply, a steep fall in the investment and saving. In addition, it feeds price of oil, and a deceleration of the Chinese political instability, which scuppers the prospect economy. A reversal has already come under of sustainable food-security policies. way. El Niño in 2015 and 2016 pushed up food
prices via floods and droughts in Southeast Asia 22 Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2013). “Food Security in Asia and the Pacific”. Available at http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/ and heavy rainfall in Brazil. Still the trends in publication/30349/food-security-asia-pacific.pdf
27 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Climate change (mitigation and and inclusive development that takes into adaptation) account climate change, targeted adaptation measures, and emissions reductions efforts that Looking back protect the poor, the World Bank estimates, Among the biggest challenges in the battle to more than 100m people could fall into extreme ensure long-term food security are the effects of poverty by 2030. Even when adaptive measures climate change. Nearly all the countries that are are taken into account, extreme weather events most severely affected by weather-related loss related to climate change (for instance, drought) events measured by the Long-Term Climate Risk could lead to crop yield losses as high as 5% by Index23 are in the bottom half of the GFSI 2030, driving up food prices.24 food-security rankings. Changing weather Countries most vulnerable to drought patterns, drought, increased rainfall and (including countries across Sub-Saharan Africa flooding have a significant impact on food and parts of Asia, and also Australia) will need to security, reducing supply and pushing up prices develop new technologies and invest in or making them more volatile. Climate change agricultural R&D to increase their resilience to has an impact on the carrying capacity of changing weather patterns. This may include the food-producing ecosystems, both on land and in introduction or development of drought- the oceans. Coastal zones—one-half the world’s resistant crops (for example, expanding population lives within 60 km of the sea—are production of millet or certain legumes). New particularly vulnerable. drought-resistant rice strains have, for instance, Many countries have started to invest in proved beneficial in India when the monsoon climate change adaptation and mitigation season occurs later than usual. measures. A transformation of the energy To alleviate future pressures on their national landscape is under way, but the GFSI shows that food-security systems, governments need to act the level of agricultural R&D in the public sector now. Many of them are keen to encourage private is inadequate and needs to be vastly enhanced investment in the overall economy, and then use and supplemented by non-public-sector sources. the resulting income from taxes on private Agricultural infrastructure will have to be companies to fund increases in agricultural improved (public-private partnerships can be an productivity and climate change mitigation and effective way of generating sufficient capital for adaptation. Failure to tap into private capital this), and investments in new technologies will effectively, especially in lower-income, need to be made. developing countries with weak enforcement capacity and governance, will result in a Looking forward reduction in food security. For governments, Governments must implement mitigation and private investors and donors, it is essential to adaptation measures to reduce the impact of collaborate to drive outcomes that make people climate change on food security. Without rapid more food-secure.
24 The World Bank. (2015). “Rapid, Climate-Informed Development Needed to Keep Climate Change from Pushing More than 100 Million People into Poverty by 2030”. Available at http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/ 23 S. Kreft et al. (2015). “Who Suffers Most From Extreme Weather Events? feature/2015/11/08/rapid-climate-informed-development-needed-to-keep- Weather-related Loss Events in 2013 and 1994 to 2013”. Global Climate Risk climate-change-from-pushing-more-than-100-million-people-into-poverty- Index. Available at https://germanwatch.org/en/download/10333.pdf by-2030
28 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Conclusion
Five years after the first edition was launched, stakeholders. Low-income countries often lack the GFSI continues to showcase the improving basic infrastructure, and smaller incomes inhibit global state of food security. A five year period is access to and affordability of nutritious food. a relatively short time frame to initiate and Political risk and corruption frequently execute significant policy or structural compound food-security challenges. Moreover, improvements, and many of the gains in the GFSI changing weather patterns, drought, increased reflect general improvements in the state of the rainfall and flooding will have a significant global economy since 2012. However, it is also impact in the long term, potentially pushing up clear that policymakers, governments and the food prices and increasing production volatility. private sector have made progress in addressing While the impact of climate change on food food security over the past five years, and they security will not solely be felt in low-income must remain committed in the face of growing countries, these countries are less equipped to threats, such as climate change, economic deal with climate change impacts and food volatility, political instability and conflict. security challenges.
Affordability and access to food has improved Challenges remain, requiring greater resolve The global economy has continued to strengthen from policymakers and other stakeholders since 2012, which has led to improvements in Even with slow, steady progress in improving incomes in most countries. With higher incomes, food security around the globe, more must be people are better able to afford more nutritious done to meet the challenge of providing foods, though not necessarily across the board sufficient quantities of nutritious, safe food for or to the same extent in every country. Trends burgeoning populations in the future. There are over the five-year period also show more climate change risks; food prices will likely start extensive food safety-net programmes, to rise again in the future; and production needs expanded food transport infrastructure and to rise in tandem with demand. Economic gains greater dietary diversity. This is particularly that have fed into rising incomes and improved evident in middle-income and emerging-market affordability are not guaranteed. The EIU expects countries. economic volatility to remain the dominant economic theme of 2016. To meet these Despite progress, low-income countries lag challenges, policymakers, governments and the behind private sector must continue to prioritise Progress in many areas should not overshadow investment in food-security-related measures. food-security issues that still require the attention of governments and other
29 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Appendix: Methodology
The objective of the Global Food Security Index The categories and indicators are: (GFSI) is to determine which countries are most and least vulnerable to food insecurity. To do 1. Affordability this, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) 1.1 Food consumption as a share of created the GFSI as a dynamic quantitative and household expenditure qualitative benchmarking model, constructed 1.2 Proportion of population under the global from 28 unique indicators, that measures drivers poverty line of food security across 113 countries. Definitions 1.3 Gross domestic product per capita (PPP) of the indicators are provided below. 1.4 Agricultural import tariffs 1.5 Presence of food safety-net programmes Scoring criteria and categories 1.6 Access to financing for farmers Categories and indicators were selected on the basis of EIU expert analysis and consultation 2. Availability with a panel of food-security specialists. The EIU 2.1 Sufficiency of supply convened the panel in February 2012 to help 2.1.1 Average food supply select and prioritise food-security indicators 2.1.2 Dependency on chronic food aid through a transparent and robust methodology. 2.2 Public expenditure on agricultural R&D The goal of the meeting was to review the 2.3 Agricultural infrastructure framework, selection of indicators, weighting 2.3.1 Existence of adequate crop storage and overall construction of the index. facilities Three category scores are calculated from the 2.3.2 Road infrastructure weighted mean of underlying indicators and are 2.3.3 Port infrastructure scaled from 0 to 100, where 100=most 2.4 Volatility of agricultural production favourable. These categories are: Affordability, 2.5 Political stability risk Availability, and Quality & Safety. The overall 2.6 Corruption score for the GFSI (on a range of 0-100) is 2.7 Urban absorption capacity calculated from a simple weighted average of the 2.8 Food loss category scores. The definitions and scoring criteria for 3. Quality & Safety indicators (1.5), (1.6) and (3.2.2) were altered 3.1 Diet diversification slightly in the 2016 version of the index to better 3.2 Nutritional standards capture nuances within these indicators. 3.2.1 National dietary guidelines Additionally, the definition for indicator (1.2) 3.2.2 National nutrition plan or strategy was changed based on revisions to the World 3.2.3 Nutrition monitoring and surveillance Bank poverty line standard. 3.3 Micronutrient availability 3.3.1 Dietary availability of vitamin A 3.3.2 Dietary availability of animal iron 3.3.3 Dietary availability of vegetal iron
30 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
3.4 Protein quality The main sources used in the GFSI are the EIU, 3.5 Food safety the World Bank Group, the International 3.5.1 Agency to ensure the safety and health of Monetary Fund (IMF), the UN Food and food Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the UN 3.5.2 Percentage of population with access to Development Programme (UNDP), the World potable water Health Organisation (WHO), the World Trade 3.5.3 Presence of formal grocery sector Organisation (WTO), the World Food Programme (WFP), Agricultural Science and Technology Data for the quantitative indicators are drawn Indicators (ASTI) and national statistical offices. from national and international statistical sources. Where there were missing values in quantitative or survey data, the EIU has used estimates. Estimated figures have been noted in the model workbook. Of the qualitative indicators, some have been created by the EIU, based on information from development banks and government websites, while others have been drawn from a range of surveys and data sources and adjusted by the EIU.
31 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Country selection The 113 countries in the index were selected by the EIU based on regional diversity, economic importance, population size (countries with larger populations were chosen so that a greater share of the global population is represented) and the goal of including regions around the globe. The countries included in the 2016 index are:
Asia & Central & Europe Gulf Middle East North Sub- Pacific South Cooperation & North America Saharan America Council Africa Africa
Australia Argentina Austria Bahrain Algeria Canada Angola Azerbaijan Bolivia Belarus Kuwait Egypt Mexico Benin Bangladesh Brazil Belgium Oman Israel United States Botswana Cambodia Chile Bulgaria Qatar Jordan Burkina Faso China Colombia Czech Republic Saudi Arabia Morocco Burundi India Costa Rica Denmark United Arab Syria Cameroon Indonesia Dominican Finland Emirates Tunisia Chad Japan Republic France Turkey Congo (Dem. Kazakhstan Ecuador Germany Yemen Rep.) Laos El Salvador Greece Côte d’Ivoire Malaysia Guatemala Hungary Ethiopia Myanmar Haiti Ireland Ghana Nepal Honduras Italy Guinea New Zealand Nicaragua Netherlands Kenya Pakistan Panama Norway Madagascar Philippines Paraguay Poland Malawi Singapore Peru Portugal Mali South Korea Uruguay Romania Mozambique Sri Lanka Venezuela Russia Niger Tajikistan Serbia Nigeria Thailand Slovakia Rwanda Uzbekistan Spain Senegal Vietnam Sweden Sierra Leone Switzerland South Africa Ukraine Sudan United Tanzania Kingdom Togo Uganda Zambia
32 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Weightings For the indicators for which a high value indicates an unfavourable environment for food The weighting assigned to each category and security—such as volatility of agricultural indicator can be changed by users to reflect production or political stability risk—the different assumptions about their relative normalisation function takes the form of: importance. Two sets of weightings are provided x = (x - Max(x)) / (Max(x) - Min(x)) in the index. One possible option, known as neutral weights, assumes that all indicators are where Min(x) and Max(x) are, respectively, the equally important and distributes weightings lowest and highest values in the 113 economies evenly. The second available option, known as for any given indicator. The normalised value is peer panel recommendation, averages the then transformed into a positive number on a weightings suggested by five members of an scale of 0-100 to make it directly comparable expert panel. The expert weightings are the with other indicators. default weightings in the model. The model workbook also enables users to create customised weightings to allow them to test their own assumptions about the relative importance of each indicator. Data modelling Indicator scores are normalised and then aggregated across categories to enable a comparison of broader concepts across countries. Normalisation rebases the raw indicator data to a common unit so that it can be aggregated. The indicators for which a higher value indicates a more favourable environment for food security—such as GDP per capita or average food supply—have been normalised on the basis of: x = (x - Min(x)) / (Max(x) - Min(x))
where Min(x) and Max(x) are, respectively, the lowest and highest values in the 113 economies for any given indicator. The normalised value is then transformed from a 0-1 value to a 0-100 score to make it directly comparable with other indicators. This in effect means that the country with the highest raw data value will score 100, while the lowest will score 0.
33 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Sources and definitions
In the 2016 version of the index, the EIU replaced all FAO data for indicator (1.1) with more up-to- date data sources. Data is now drawn from the UN Household Surveys and individual country consumer price indices (CPIs). Across all indicators, where the quantitative or survey data have missing values, the EIU has estimated the scores.
Indicator Primary source(s) Year Indicator definitions and construction 1) Affordability
Food consumption as a share National accounts; UN Latest available year in A measure of the national average percentage of of household expenditure 2006-16 household expenditure that is spent on food. Proportion of population World Bank, World Latest available year in A measure of the prevalence of poverty, calculated as under global poverty line Development Indicators 2005-15 the percentage of the population living on less than US$3.10/day at 2011 purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates. GDP per capita at PPP The Economist Intelligence 2015 A measure of individual income and, hence, the Unit (EIU) affordability of food, calculated in US dollars at PPP. Agricultural import tariffs World Trade Organisation Latest available year in Measured as the average applied most-favoured nation (WTO) 2012-14 (MFN) tariff on all agricultural imports. Presence of food safety-net Qualitative scoring by EIU Latest available year in A measure of public initiatives to protect the poor from programmes analysts 2009-16 food-related shocks. This indicator considers food safety-net programmes, including in-kind food transfers, conditional cash transfers (e.g. food vouchers) and the existence of school feeding programmes provided by the government, non- governmental organisations (NGOs) or the multilateral sector. Measured on a 0-4 scale based on the prevalence and depth of food safety-net programmes: 0 = No evidence of food safety-net programmes or very minimal presence of ineffective programmes run by NGOs or multilaterals only. 1 = Minimal presence of food safety-net programmes run by NGOs and multilaterals only or very rudimentary, ineffective government-run programmes. 2 = Moderate prevalence and depth of food safety-net programmes run by government, multilaterals or NGOs. 3 = National coverage, with very broad, but not deep, coverage of food safety-net programmes. 4 = National government-run provision of food safety-net programmes. Depth indicates the quantity of funds available to recipients; breadth indicates the range of services available.
34 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Indicator Primary source(s) Year Indicator definitions and construction
Access to financing for Qualitative scoring by EIU Latest available year in A measure of the availability of financing to farmers farmers analysts 2006-16 from the public sector. Measured on a 0-4 scale based on the depth and range of financing for farmers: 0 = Virtually no access to government or multilateral financing programmes (typically, but not necessarily, a developing economy). 1 = Limited multilateral or government financing programmes (typically, but not necessarily, a developing economy). 2 = Some multilateral or government financing (typically, but not necessarily, an emerging-market economy). 3 = Broad, but not deep, financing (typically, but not necessarily, a developed economy) OR well-developed multilateral financing programmes (typically, but not necessarily, an emerging-market economy). 4 = Access to deep financing (typically, but not necessarily, an advanced economy). Depth indicates the quantity of funds available; range covers credit and insurance.
2) Availability
Sufficiency of supply EIU scoring – A composite indicator that measures the availability of food. It comprises the following subindicators: • Average food supply in kcal/capita/day • Dependency on chronic food aid Average food supply FAO 2005-13 An estimate of the amount of food available for human consumption in kcal/capita/day. Dependency on chronic food World Food Programme (WFP) 2006-13 Measures whether a country is a recipient of chronic aid food aid. For the purpose of this index, chronic aid recipients are defined as those countries that have received non-emergency food aid over a five-year time span. Measured on a 0-2 scale: 0 = Received chronic food aid on an increasing basis over the past five years. 1 = Received chronic food aid on a decreasing basis over the past five years. 2 = Receives little or no food aid, or receives food aid only on an emergency basis.
35 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Indicator Primary source(s) Year Indicator definitions and construction
Public expenditure on EIU estimates based on OECD Latest available year in A measure of government spending on agricultural agricultural research and and Agricultural Science and 2002-15 R&D. Expenditure on agricultural R&D is a proxy for development (R&D) Technology Indicators (ASTI) agricultural innovation and technology that increases market efficiency and access. Measured as a percentage of agricultural GDP and is scored on a nine-point scale: 1 = 0-0.5% 2 = 0.51-1.0% 3 = 1.01-1.5% 4 = 1.51-2.0% 5 = 2.01-2.5% 6 = 2.51-3.0% 7 = 3.01-3.5% 8 = 3.51-4.0% 9 = 4.01-4.5% Agricultural infrastructure EIU scoring – A composite indicator that measures ability to store crops and transport them to market. Subindicators include: • Existence of adequate crop storage facilities • Road infrastructure • Port infrastructure Existence of adequate crop Qualitative scoring by EIU Latest available year in This binary indicator assesses the presence of sufficient storage facilities analysts 2007-16 crop storage facilities based on size of agricultural sector and population. Measured on a 0-1 scale: 0 = No 1 = Yes Road infrastructure EIU Risk Briefing 2016 This qualitative indicator measures the quality of road infrastructure and is measured on a 0-4 scale, where 4=best. Port infrastructure EIU Risk Briefing 2016 This qualitative indicator measures the quality of port infrastructure and is measured on a 0-4 scale, where 4=best. Volatility of agricultural FAO 1994-2013 This indicator measures the standard deviation of the production growth of agricultural production over the most recent 20-year period for which data are available. Political stability risk EIU Risk Briefing 2016 A measure of general political instability. Political instability has the potential to disrupt access to food, for example through transport blockages or reduced food aid commitments. Corruption EIU Risk Briefing 2016 This indicator measures the pervasiveness of corruption in a country by assessing the risk of corruption. Corruption can impact food availability through distortions and inefficiencies in the use of natural resources, as well as bottleneck inefficiencies in food distribution. Measured on a 0-4 scale, where 4=highest risk.
36 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Indicator Primary source(s) Year Indicator definitions and construction
Urban absorption capacity World Bank, World 2012-16 This indicator measures the capacity of a country to Development Indicators; EIU absorb the stresses placed on it by urban growth and still ensure food security. It does so by evaluating a country’s resources (real GDP) against the stress of urbanisation (urban population growth rate). It is calculated as the average (annual) real percentage change in GDP minus the urban population growth rate. Food loss FAO 2009-13 A measure of post-harvest and pre-consumer food loss as a ratio of the domestic supply (production, net imports and stock changes) of crops, livestock and fish commodities (in tonnes).
3) Quality & Safety
Diet diversification FAO 2009-11 A measure of the share of non-starchy foods (all foods other than cereals, roots and tubers) in total dietary energy consumption. A larger share of non-starchy foods signifies greater diversity of food groups in the diet. Nutritional standards EIU scoring – A composite indicator that measures government commitment to increasing nutritional standards. It comprises the following binary subindicators: • National dietary guidelines • National nutrition plan or strategy • Nutrition monitoring and surveillance National dietary guidelines Qualitative scoring by EIU Latest available year in A binary indicator that measures whether the analysts based on WHO, FAO 2001-16 government has published guidelines for a balanced and national health ministry and nutritious diet: documents 0 = No 1 = Yes National nutrition plan or Qualitative scoring by EIU Latest available year in A binary indicator that measures whether the strategy analysts based on WHO, FAO 1995-2016 government has a current, published national strategy and national health ministry to improve nutrition: documents 0 = No 1 = Yes *A country receives credit if the national strategy was current as of February 2016. For example, a national strategy covering 2010‑20 would receive credit; a strategy covering 2010-15 would not receive credit. Credit may also be assigned if there is clear evidence that an expired strategy is currently being re‑implemented or updated. Nutrition monitoring and Qualitative scoring by EIU Latest available year in A binary indicator that measures whether the surveillance analysts based on WHO, FAO 2001-16 government monitors the nutritional status of the and national health ministry general population. Examples of monitoring and documents surveillance include the collection of data on undernourishment, nutrition-related deficiencies, etc. 0 = No 1 = Yes
37 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Indicator Primary source(s) Year Indicator definitions and construction
Micronutrient availability EIU – A composite indicator that measures the availability of micronutrients in the food supply. Subindicators include: • Dietary availability of vitamin A • Dietary availability of animal iron • Dietary availability of vegetal iron Dietary availability of FAO 2005-07 The dietary availability of vitamin A is calculated by vitamin A converting the amount of food available for human consumption (as estimated by the FAO Food Balance Sheets) into the equivalent of vitamin A. This indicator is expressed in micrograms of retinol activity equivalent (RAE)/capita/day on a 0-2 scale. 0 = less than 300 mcg RAE/capita/day; 1 = 300-600 mcg RAE/capita/day; 2 = more than 600 mcg RAE/capita/day Dietary availability of animal FAO 2005-07 The dietary availability of iron is calculated by iron converting the amount of food available for human consumption (as estimated by the FAO Food Balance Sheets) into the equivalent of iron. Animal iron is obtained from foods such as meat, milk, fish, animal fats and eggs. This indicator is expressed in mg/capita/ day. Dietary availability of vegetal FAO 2005-07 The dietary availability of iron is calculated by iron converting the amount of food available for human consumption (as estimated by the FAO Food Balance Sheets) into the equivalent of iron. Vegetal iron is obtained from foods such as cereals, pulses, roots and tubers, vegetable oils, fruits and vegetables. This indicator is expressed in mg/capita/day. Protein quality EIU calculation based on data 2005-11 This indicator measures the amount of high-quality from FAO, WHO and US protein in the diet using the methodology of the Department of Agriculture Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (USDA) Nutrient Database (PDCAAS). The PDCAAS methodology assesses the presence of nine essential amino acids in the average national diet. The inputs for this calculation include: the amino acid profile, protein digestibility value and the average amount (in grams) consumed of each food item that contributes a minimum of 2% to total protein consumption. Food safety EIU scoring – A composite indicator that measures the enabling environment for food safety. The subindicators are: • Agency to ensure the safety and health of food • Percentage of population with access to potable water • Presence of a formal grocery sector Agency to ensure the safety Qualitative scoring by EIU Latest available in 2005-16 Binary indicator that measures the existence of a and health of food analysts regulatory or administrative agency to ensure the safety and health of food: 0 = No 1 = Yes
38 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Indicator Primary source(s) Year Indicator definitions and construction
Percentage of population World Bank Latest available in 2012-15 The percentage of people using improved drinking with access to potable water water sources, namely household connection, public standpipe, borehole, protected dug well, protected spring, rainwater. Presence of formal grocery Qualitative scoring by EIU Latest available in 2010-16 Qualitative indicator measuring the prevalence of a sector analysts formal grocery sector, measured on a 0-2 scale: 0 = Minimal presence 1 = Moderate presence 2 = Widespread presence
4) Output variables
Prevalence of FAO 2014-16 The percentage of the population that does not receive undernourishment the minimum number of required calories for an average person as defined by the FAO/WHO/UN University Expert Consultation in 2001. Percentage of children WHO Latest available year in The percentage of children aged under five years who stunted 1970-2014 have a height-for-age below -2 standard deviation from the National Centre for Health Statistics (NCHS)/WHO reference median. Percentage of children WHO Latest available year in The percentage of children under five years who have a underweight 1970-2014 weight-for-age below -2 standard deviation from the NCHS/WHO reference median. Intensity of food deprivation FAO 2014-16 A measure of how far, on average, the population falls below the dietary energy requirement. It is measured as the difference between the minimum dietary energy intake and the average dietary energy intake of the undernourished population. Human Development Index UNDP 2014 A composite index that measures development by combining indicators on life expectancy, educational attainment and income. Global Gender Gap Index World Economic Forum 2015 The Global Gender Gap Index seeks to measure the gaps between women and men across a large set of countries and across the four key areas of health, education, economy and politics. EIU Democracy Index EIU 2015 The Democracy Index provides a snapshot of the state of democracy in 165 states and two territories. The index includes indicators in the following five categories: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties. Prevalence of obesity WHO 2014 Measures the percentage of the population over 18 years of age that is obese. Obesity is defined as having an age-standardised body mass index (BMI) greater than 30.
39 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 Global food security index 2016 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Whilst every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy of this information, neither The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd. nor the sponsor of this report can accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this report or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the report. Cover: Shutterstock
40 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2016 London New York Hong Kong Geneva 20 Cabot Square 750 Third Avenue 6001, Central Plaza Boulevard des London 5th Floor 18 Harbour Road Tranchées 16 E14 4QW New York, NY 10017 Wanchai 1206 Geneva United Kingdom United States Hong Kong Switzerland Tel: (44.20) 7576 8000 Tel: (1.212) 554 0600 Tel: (852) 2585 3888 Tel: (41) 22 566 2470 Fax: (44.20) 7576 8476 Fax: (1.212) 586 0248 Fax: (852) 2802 7638 Fax: (41) 22 346 93 47 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]